Friday, December 9, 2016

2)
read the transcripts of the video (including appendix: Physics v.
Computer Coding).
Hello I am Dr. Valentin Voroshilov.
Since my graduation with my Masters in theoretical physics I’ve been teaching
algebra based physics, calculus based physics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry,
even logic, and problem solving. I also have a PhD in education with the
concentration in teacher professional development. I have developed and taught
courses to middle and high school teachers. I also developed and taught a
physics course for students with learning disabilities. So, I know a thing or
two about teaching, and I am good at that. My website GoMars.XYZ provides all information about
me (Why “GoMars”? Because it’s easy to remember!).

If you click on this link you
can read what my former students say about my teaching. This is the best proof
any teacher can have of a good teaching (capital G, capital T). I’m pretty
proud of this, considering that when I moved from Russia to Boston I couldn’t
speak or understand any English. Today I teach and wright. I am very
productive. I publish papers and even books. I think that today I am
compensating for all those years when I was learning English (mostly via TV and
radio) and couldn’t express myself.

Well, I guess, if you are still watching that means you too understand what I’m
saying.

The first time I realized that I was good at teaching was a long time ago. I
was teaching physics to two-year college students. It was the first or second
week of the course. The class had to solve some problems, and every student had
to show the work to me. A girl was walking to me slouching and scared. She
handed me her notebook. I looked at it. The solution was absolutely correct. I
said “You are absolutely right, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to be done”.
Her face lightens up, she smiles, and she says “I wouldn’t ever think that I
could solve a physics problem on my own.”

Since then every time when I begin teaching a new course, I look at my
students, and I see an anxiety or even fear in many eyes. Based on my surveys,
student feedback, and just everyday conversations with students, I know that
many of them are scared of physics, they think physics is too difficult, and
they can’t get a good grade in physics.

That is why at the very beginning of every physics course I always tell my
students “You can learn physics. Everybody can learn physics. Everyone who
knows a multiplication table, and can solve a quadratic equation can learned a
high level of physics - like quantum gravitation. And everyone can get an A.
Different people may need different time and effort to get it, but everyone in
this room can succeeded in a physics course. If someone tells you that physics is
hard, and you can’t learn it, that person is a liar, or a bad teacher, or he or
she just wants to feel better about themselves. “I know physics, I’m so smart.”

There is a lot of competition in a “science” of teaching physics. Some people
compete for a fame like actors compete for an Oscar.

Most of my students by the end of a course change the perception of physics
from “hard” to “doable”, and a perception of themselves from “I can’t do
physics” to “I’m actually smarter than I thought!”
I always say that to learn how to solve a problem about walking a rope is much
easier and faster than to learn how to walk a rope.

People
say that to learn physics you have to be good at math. That’s not true. That’s
another myth. To learn an algebra based physics people need to know a simple,
elementary, rudimentary mathematics available to everyone.

Learning physics is like learning a foreign language. You need to memorize a
set of new words. And you need to be able to look around, to see things, to
name those things, to classify those things and relationships between those
things. As a school subject, physics is uniquely positioned as a bridge between
an abstract world of mathematics and real world of actual phenomena.

Physics
as a science is based on experiments, but when we learn physics most of the
work is happening in our brain. We have to use the power of our mind to
manipulate with different images, ideas, abstract objects. That is why the most
important tool for learning physics is imagination – like in reading and
writing.

Nowadays, physics is used far beyond just physics and engineering. It has
entered business, medicine, even sport – and this is the first answer to “WHY
students need to learn physics”.

I want to finish this video with a question “If everyone can learn physics,
does it mean that everyone can teach it?” The answer is “No”. Why? For a short
answer, I recommend to read the “Fundamental Laws of TeachOlogy”. It takes just
five minutes. For the full discussion please read my book “Becoming a STEM
teacher” which is available on Amazon.com or Smashwords.com, or NoiseTrade.com, and almost free. Or just call
me and we will talk.

Thank
you.

Appendix: Physics v. Computer Coding

(a.k.a. a “scientific thinking” v. “computational thinking”)

Nowadays computer coding, or “computational thinking” enjoy a broad attention, an
ideological and financial support from all levels of government and
philanthropy.

According to the Wikipedia: “Computational Thinking is the thought processes
involved in formulating a problem and expressing its solution(s) in such a way
that a computer—human or machine—can effectively carry out. Computational
Thinking is an iterative process based on three stages: 1) Problem Formulation
(abstraction), 2) Solution Expression (automation), and 3) Solution Execution
& Evaluation (analyses)”.

Simply, computational thinking has two parts: developing the solution of a
problem (a.k.a thinking, or reasoning), and coding (translating into computer
operations) that solution using a language understandable by a computer.

The later part – coding – relies mostly on memorizing lines of computer
commands (or, if using a high-level object oriented programming – memorizing a
set of programming operations).

Imagine that you want to learn a foreign language, and you memorized the whole
dictionary, so you can translate – both ways – any individual word. You still
will not be able to read, or write, or talk, because you do not know how to
compose a correct sentence – for that you also need to know the grammar of the
language (and to practice). Exactly the same situation happens, if you learn
all coding commands, but cannot develop a correct algorithm which represents
the solution of a problem you need to solve.

That is why the first part of the definition of the computational thinking –
“formulating a problem and expressing its solution” – is the most important
part of the “ computational thinking” process.

And this is the part which is lacking in school education.

And this is the part, teaching of which requires the most of the effort of a
teacher.

And this is the part which represents the type of a scientific thinking, which
has a natural place and natural development when study physics (BTW: in
“computational thinking”, “scientific thinking, “critical thinking”, etc. the
most important part of a definition is “thinking”).

When learning how to solve a problem about how to walk a rope, and when
learning how to solve ANY physics problems, a student – under the guidance of
an experienced teacher – uses and develops his or her problem-solving
abilities, which have a universal nature, or meta-nature (click here for more
on what does it mean thinking as a physicist).

Everyone who learns physics, automatically develops the most important part of
a computational thinking (a.k.a. thinking!), and can easily learn computer
coding – the opposite is just not true (and this is the second answer to “WHY
students need to learn physics”).

And
the third answer to “WHY school students need to learn physics” is: because it
helps to advance reasoning skills. And because of thatevery
middle and high school student needs to take a physics course.

And
one more thing about computer coding.

All intelligent people use a code – every day! When we read, we decode symbols (letters, words) into our
internal meanings and feelings. When we write, we code our internal meanings
and feelings into symbols (if you add algebra to reading and writing, you get
another level of coding).

To
demonstrate the importance of using a correct sequence of steps to achieve a
given goal (an important part of any logical thinking), a teacher
does not need to teach how to code; a teacher can just offer a puzzle (for
example, a mechanical
one).

But
everyone who is thinking about teaching computer coding to students who are not
proficient enough in reading and writing, should know:

“It will not work!”

“And
if you are still trying to do this, that might mean only two things. Either you
are an enthusiast who does not know how people learn – in that case the right
step would be seeking an advice from a professional in teaching. Or you are an
imposer, who does not really care about students and just uses the opportunity
to gain something personally beneficial (usually money).

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Teaching is guiding students through an arrangement of
learning experiences specifically designed for helping students with mastering
the subject, including understanding the topics, developing skills, and feeling
good about themselves.

7th

Teaching = motivating + demonstrating + instructing + explaining

Learning = goal making + memorizing + reiterating
+ thinking

Understanding = making sense of the things by
connecting the current experience with the previous knowledge, and – if needed
– modifying the previous knowledge, or re-describing the current experience.

8th

If a person can learn the multiplication table and the
strategy for solving a quadratic equation, that person can learn any high level
intellectual knowledge (e.g. quantum gravitation), and there are only two
reasons for that not happening - no desire, or a wrong teacher.

9th

If the only exercise students had been doing for 12 years is
squats, they will not be good at push-ups and pull-ups. Do not expect from
students an ability to think if all the had to do for 12 years was memorizing
facts and rules.

10th

True learning never happens by watching, it happens by
doing.

You can watch for hours other people swimming, but if you
want to learn how to swim you have to get yourself into water and start trying.

Reading (and watching, and listening) helps to form an
initial vocabulary, and to set relationships between the current knowledge and
the upcoming one. Doing (speaking, writing, solving, explaining) forms the
skills.

11th

The “learning space” of students in a class is (essentially)
three dimensional: students might differ by their 1. background (previously
learned knowledge and skills); 2. learnability (rate and volume of attaining
knowledge and skills as a function of time and effort); 3. motivation
(aspirations and willingness to learn).

12th

Kids do not know anything and learn everything from scratch.
When adults learn new skills, they repeat the same general steps and stages of
learning they used to use when where learning as kids (but usually/hopefully
faster).

13th

Look at infants – they always try doing new things and want
to learn something new! Now look at school graduates – so many of them do not
want to learn anything new. A facility which does this to students cannot be
called “a school”

14th

The best gift a parent can give to a child is good habits;
the best gift a teacher can give to a student is love for learning and
confidence in ability to learn.

The art of teaching is based on the science of learning, the
love for education, and the passion for sharing this love.

15th

Everybody can drive, but not everyone is a good driver,
everybody can cook, but not everyone is a chef. Anyone can talk, but it is
wrong to think that anybody can be a good teacher.

A great teacher is not the one who just loves teaching, but
the one who loves learning and is passionate in sharing this love.

If you are a good teacher, your students understand your way
of thinking and copy what you do. If you are a great teacher, your students can
generate their own ideas and do things impossible to you.

For example – for a physics or math teacher.

If you are a good teacher, your students understand your
solutions to problems, if you are a great teacher, your students generate their
own solutions.

16th

Teachers – like doctors – must take “a Hippocratic Oath” of
a teacher. i.e. to promise “never do harm to anyone”, because there is always
something more important in teaching than merely transmitting knowledge.

If a person does not like a challenge and does not like
learning, that person should not go into the business of education in any form;
she.he is not going to be a good teacher, or administrator, or a researcher in
the field.

17th

There are three kinds of human practices/projects with the
goal of advancing human life: (a) scientific research - the goal of a scientific
research is discovering new knowledge; (b) engineering and art - the goal of an
engineering development is building new devices (and systems of devices), the
goal of art is bringing/developing artifacts of art; (c) social advancement -
the goal of a social advancement project is developing or adopting new
collective practice(s) (new - for the given social group, but may have been
used already by other people).

18th

Every human practice has some elements of a scientific
research: when we start a project, we generally have some understanding of what
we want to achieve and how we want to achieve that (“a hypothesis”), and how
will we assess (measure) how close we are to the goal (“facts”).

The difference between a scientific research and a social
project is in “what utilizes what”.

In a scientific research, some social activity is being used
as a vehicle to obtain new knowledge. In that case, some advancement in some
social practice represents a “collateral” result of the research.

In a social project, some scientific knowledge is being used
to achieve positive changes in a certain social situation. In this case, some
newly recorded knowledge represents a “collateral” result of the project.

19th

Physics represents the most developed scientific approach to
study the Nature. When a physicist is trying to understand how the Nature
works, he/she uses a scientific approach based on clear and uniformly used
terminology, and on well-defined and uniformly used measuring tools and
procedures. Everyone who teaches a science has to use the same scientific
approach. Everyone who teaches how to
teach a science has to use the same scientific approach.

20th

People who praise the Socratic method should
keep in mind how he ended his life.

For Socrates, knowledge a person has, defines that person as
a whole. When Socrates said: “I know that I know nothing” he did not just
accept limits of his knowledge, he accepted his limits as a human being.
Unfortunately, expecting the same from others had lead Socrates to willingly
drinking poison.

Often people who praise the Socratic method do not like when
it is applied to them.

Often people who praise the Socratic method demonstrate
differences between Socrates (as seen by historians) and themselves.

A law is a statement of an existing pattern. This statement
usually has a verbal or a mathematical representation.

II) What does a law do?

A law allows to explain observed phenomena. But the most
important application of a law is to predicting events. A law allows to make a
statement about (a) what events will be possible for happening (within given
limits, under given circumstances, within a given timeframe), and (b) among
possible events, what is a chance for a given event to happen.

III) What is “a science”?

The definition of a science is multi-dimensional.

(a) A science is an internally consistent body of knowledge
based on the scrupulous and logical analysis of a vast amount of data.

(b) A science is a specific human practice which mission is
to obtain and describe natural and social patterns (a.k.a. laws) in order to
use those patterns for making reliable predictions.

(shortly: the mission of a science is making predictions; if
making reliable predictions is not yet possible, the field is still in a
pre-science stage)

(c) The development of a science usually has two stages:

1) a pre-science stage, when the main goals of human
activities are:

* developing a language (mainly naming objects and
processes), tools and procedures (including specifically designed experiments)
for collecting and classifying data, and

* collecting and classifying data, and

* formulating the set of patterns describing the phenomena
within a specific domain

2) a science stage,
when the main goals of human activities are:

* using the developed set of patterns for improving human
living, and

* using the developed set of pattern for advancing the
science

Avery human practice presents a certain combination of
pre-scientific activities, scientific activities, art, engineering, and chaotic
trials. The activity which dominates the practice gives the name to the
practice.

For example, the very first project at the top of the first page
“Transitioning Learners to Calculus in Community Colleges” aims at “Improving
student outcomes in mathematics courses in community colleges”. The main
vehicle of the project is improving instructions by utilizing various
instruments (mostly surveys, and self-assessments). Is this an important social
project? Of course! Does it represent a fundamental scientific research? Of
course not!

· Improving and advancing STEM learning
and learning environments for students, parents, teachers and the general
population in all settings, from formal and informal education to technological
learning environments.

· Supporting and preparing a STEM professional
workforce that is ready to capitalize on unprecedented advances in technology
and science and address current and future global, social and economic
challenges.

· Diversifying and increasing
participation in STEM, effectively building institutional capacity and informal
learning environments that foster the untapped potential of underrepresented
groups in STEM fields.”

The brief reading
of the bullets already raises a question – do the goals really represent the
search fora fundamental scientific
knowledge, or they rather aim atimproving
immediate social issueseducation
system currently deals with?

leads to “the complete list of ECR projects and their abstracts”
(the picture shows page 1).

The total number of projects funded within $61
million is 114. However, only 3 projects from 114 really fall in a category
“fundamental scientific research”. Those three truly fundamental scientific
projects are related to a neurology of thinking; they study various connections
between process of thinking and processes happening in a brain while thinking.
The total amount of funding set aside for those projects is #2,242,982, which
is equal to 3.7 % of the total funds.

It means that
96.3 % of the funds are being used for projects of another kind (do not belong
to a fundamental scientific research).

If one just reads
the titles of the projects one can find several more projects which also may be
sought as a part of a fundamental scientific research, but that would require
the detailed analysis of the projects.

If the NSF would
ask me to do such an analysis, I could, but I doubt that the NSF would.

A brief reading of
the project titles and some of the abstracts shows that the majority of the
projects are of a social nature; they aim at improving a current social
situation by solving a specific immediate social problem within the field of
education.

No doubt, some
of those socially oriented projects are fundamentally important for making
education better, more successful, more student oriented, more diverse.

But they
would not help much to advance a science of education.

The classification
of socially oriented projects as a part of a fundamental scientific research is
a very common practice; and it is based on a common misconception of what a
science is.

2) then describes
some steps which would lead to the answer to this questions, and

3) then describes
how he or she would assess if the question was answered correctly

– that person
conducts a scientific research.

In reality,this procedure is most commonly
used for achieving a specific social goal.

This procedure is
used when a person feels some disconnection between his or her social position
and the position the person desires to have. This procedure has been an object
of a study of a General Theory of Human Activity (a.k.a. Activity Theory),
which has several different forms, or academic schools, including the one used
in the field of ateacher professional development.

Not any
possible question (a.k.a. a proposition which starts from “Is it true that …”)
should be called a hypothesis, and not any possible activity which leads to an
answer should be called a research.

In general, there
are three kinds of human practices/projects with the goal of advancing human
life: (a) scientific research - the goal of a scientific research is
discovering new knowledge; (b) engineering and art - the goal of an engineering
development is building new devices (and systems of devices), the goal of art
is bringing/developing artifacts of art; (c) social advancement - the goal of a
social advancement project is developing or adopting new collective practice(s)
(new - for the given social group, but may have been used already by other
people).

Clearly, every
practice has some elements of a scientific research: when we start a project,
we generally have some understanding of what we want to achieve and how we want
to achieve that (“a hypothesis”), and how will we assess (measure) how close we
are to the goal (“facts”).

The difference
between a scientific research and a social project is in “what utilizes what”.

In a scientific
research, some social activity is being used as a vehicle to obtain new
knowledge. In that case, some advancement in some social practice represents a
“collateral” result of the research.

In a social
project, some scientific knowledge is being used to achieve positive changes in
a certain social situation. In this case, some newly recorded knowledge
represents a “collateral” result of the project.

There
are many things in the world which are similar on the outside but very different
on the inside, or by their functions, goals, properties. For example, a space
shuttle and a fighter jet look very similar, but only one can fly in the outer
world (a space shuttle). The difference between a scientific research and a
social project is similar to the difference between an archeological excavation
and a dig for a treasure chest: they both use some digging, but the goals and
the results are very different.

The
majority of the 114 projects funded by the NSF aim at the achievement of some
positive social changes in a certain educational environment.

And many more
projects sound like this one. If we strip off all the scientific language, we
will read – paraphrasing –

1) “We want our
students to do better. For that we plan on trying this.” – if the project
mostly involves faculty or teachers who directly teach students.

or

2) “We want our
school teachers to teach better. For that we plan on trying this.” – if the
project mostly involves faculty from a school of education.

I don’t’ claim
thatallprojects are fall into the two
described categories, but most of them do.

One might ask,
what harm is in calling social projects as scientific ones? Both kinds are
important and do good for education.

The bigger problem
is that unwillingly “the NSF essentially forces people into faking doing
science. The core of any science is being truthful about everything;
including goals, methods, types of actions being used to achieve the goals. If
people assume that faking science is fine – even for the sake of achieving
positive social changes – that will water down the essence of science.

It is a scientific
fact that both, the Religion and the Government, have benefited from the
separation of Church and State. Similarly, the separation of programs for
social advancement from programs for scientific advancement will be beneficial
for both, social and scientific advancement.

Not enforcing such
a separation makes the way the NSF funds of some of educational projects to be
wrong”.

The last quote has
been taken froma recent essay, which
offers a broader discussion.

Anotherrecent essayoffers a discussion on what should the
fundamental research in the field of education be about. The central premise of
the approach for marking a research as “fundamental” is based on the facts,
that

1) For every
child, there is a finite number of individual characteristics describing his or
her learning, behavioral, and social styles.

2) There is a
finite number of subjects to learn, and within each subject there is a finite
volume of knowledge to learn, and a finite number of skills to master.

Hence, it should
take a finite amount of time to study all relevant and sustainable correlations
(a.k.a.laws).

However, everyone who is
familiar with the history of education knows that similar needs and calls are nothing
new.

Since the first shock of the
Russian Sputnik (1957) politicians, government officials, business leaders have
been trying to transform STEM education to prevent the U.S. from losing its
competitiveness (for instance, just check the list of corresponded federal and state laws).

A logical person should ask, why, despite all the efforts (and
billions of dollars) the urgency in transforming STEM education hasn’t
lowered?

The answer is actually simple.

We live in a very different
world than it was decades ago, but the discussion about education has not
changed a bit.

The decades-long battle can be summarized as a collision between
“charter schools and merit pay” supporters vs. “we need job security and more
resources” advocates.

Physicists debated if the newly
discovered tiny objects are particles - just like tiny balls, or waves - like ones
seen on the surface of a lake.

Eventually the crisis had been
resolved.

Turned out the question itself “is it a particle or a wave?” was just a
wrong question

(like: “Who won 1063 Super Bowl
on Mars?” - the question itself has no sense!).

The new microscopic objects
(electrons, protons, neutrons, even atoms and molecules) were neither particles
nor waves. To resolve the crisis scientists had to invent a completely new way
of thinking about the nature.

Turned out that the old way of
thinking, which perfectly worked for analyzing macroscopic phenomena, just
could not be applied for analyzing the microscopic world.

A new paradigm had to be developed and be used to replace the old one.

The fact that decades of reforms left
education in a state that still needs serous
reformation is a clear sign that the debaters need to seek a new paradigm,
because, clearly, the current one does not really work.

Yes, there has to be a way to
weed out teachers who cannot teach (are they really teachers?). Yes, there has
to be a way to provide incentives to teachers who do a good job. But on the
other hand, there is no
evidence that a merit pay works. And on average only one in five charter
schools visibly outperform public school in student learning outcomes (“the
majority do the same or worse”).

Continuing the debate and seeking the solutions using the old paradigm will NOT bring the so-needed changes in STEM
education.

I’ve been in education for many
years, teaching physics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, logic, problem
solving; studying teaching physics, math, and problem solving; helping teachers
with teaching physics, math, and solving their professional problems;
consulting administrators on the efficient managing of teaching.

The history of business
demonstrates that often a breakthrough in a certain technological field is
brought by the outsiders in the field (an example? Netflix!). Currently
business leaders provide tremendous efforts to support STEM education by
helping teachers with solving everyday professional problems.

However, from a strategic point
of view, the time has come for business leaders to drive the reformation of the way STEM education is currently being
reformed.

Business leaders – as the outsiders for the field of education – could
and should generate the search for a NEW PARADIGM of the educational reform.

I would be happy to offer my
view on the most important elements of the new paradigm.

If you would like to learn more
or to become a part of the force driving the reformation of the way education
is currently being reformed, please, feel free to contact me and/or to set up a
short meeting, or please pass this letter to your associates.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Building a community around new projects might be crucial for education reform

Today I had a meeting with Dean Dr. Hardin Coleman and Associate
Dean Dr. Donna H. Lehr of the Boston University School of Education.

To a date, they represent the highest-level officials I was
able to talk to.

I appreciate very much the time they invested in the
meeting.

We have discussed some of the projects, including “Treat
Education Like Space Exploration”.

I was met with very thoughtful questions, and was given very
helpful feedback, useful information (including who to meet next, and what to
expect).

When we were discussing a prospective of a science of
education, at a certain point Dean Coleman asked me how many years do I plan to
work on the project?

My answer was: “I hope I will be able to work thirty to forty more years”.

I am perfectly aware that such a project requires years, if
not decades to complete.

It must have stages.

The first stage has been started and is happening right now –
it is seeking people who agree with the general idea.

Many people – even high ranking university officials – think
of education as an art, or a sport. They do not see the need in having a
science of education. They do not even believe that a science of education is
possible to be developed. And believe me or not, many people holding PhD in education agree with this point of view!
This is one of the reasons I try to attract the attention of people from the outside of education.

That is why I have to keep looking, have to keep posting
posts and videos, and have to keep setting up meetings.

If you read my blog, you know my negative reaction to having
Donald Trump as our new President.

However, when thinking about education, I may be able to
find a silver lining in it.

I would expect the Clinton’s administration would not be
making any drastic changes to the current way of educational reform. And that
would mean a stagnation for many more years.

If you read my publications, you know that I advocate for
significant changes in the way education is being funded, teacher preparation
is being conducted, and a science of education is being developed.

With the new Administration coming, there is at least a
chance that the situation in education will begin to change in the right direction.

There is also a chance the new Administration will ruin
education, but this heavily depends on the people who will be brought to the
top of the Department of Education.

It also will depend on the actions of all the public – from parents,
to teachers, from district officials to philanthropists. And that is why we
need to build a community around such projects like “Treat Education Like Space
Exploration!” (https://www.gofundme.com/teachology), or “Physics Course to Every Student, Physics Into Every School!” (http://www.teachology.xyz/2020.html)